Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2012, 21:44

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print

Topic: Great News (!)  

(Read 2396 times)
cidepix



« on: January 17, 2012, 16:10 »

am I the only one who thinks this is going to be great for us, stock illustrators and photographers (and all stock creators)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

and although wikipedia don't really like it for their own reasons http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout

I believe if passed it will benefit us greatly in the long run..


Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
Karimala



« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2012, 16:20 »

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.


Ignore | Logged


sjlocke

iStock Gauge
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2012, 16:21 »

Yeah, pretty much the entire interwebz is against it.


Ignore | Logged


gostwyck

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2012, 16:37 »

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.


^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?


Ignore | Logged


cidepix



« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2012, 16:48 »

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.


^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?


Exactly my point.. I do believe this new thing is gonna be good for us.. Just imagine if similar bills are passed by all the governments in the world.. At least Europe should be expected to follow shortly, this will mean our content will not be available on pirate websites and will automatically translate to increased earnings.. am I missing something?


Ignore | Logged


Blammo


« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2012, 16:52 »

Sweden recognizes digital piracy religion: Kopimism  Huh Grin


Ignore | Logged


WarrenPrice

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2012, 17:05 »

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.


^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?


I did not see those words anywhere in her comment.  You sound like "the Mushroom Cloud" administration.


Ignore | Logged


Karimala



« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2012, 17:09 »

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.


^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?


Not at all.  Of course I'm in favor of the intent and understand fully they are meant to take down illegitimate sites, but the bills as written are unacceptable.  As a California resident, I'm very concerned about any unintended consequences to the tech industry in the Silicon Valley, as well as how infringing on copyrights affects the entertainment/media industry, and how one bad unintended consequence could negatively impact my state's economy.  Tech and entertainment/media are two of the largest industries in California (and California has the 7th largest economy in the world). 

Senator Patrick Leahy, one of the co-authors of PIPA (the senate version of SOPA), is now saying the bills need further study, because the effect on the tech industry wasn't considered when originally written.  The bills were originally pushed by the entertainment industry.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398881,00.asp 

Rep. Darrell Issa from California is pushing for an alternative that would offer a compromise between the two industries.  I'm all for a compromise, because any anti-piracy legislation cannot be lopsided in favor of one industry over another.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/248240/opponent_says_sopa_may_be_stalled_in_congress.html


Ignore | Logged


traveler1116


« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2012, 17:13 »

The bill is for taking down foreign websites not American ones.


Ignore | Logged


WarrenPrice

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2012, 17:15 »

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.


^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?


Exactly my point.. I do believe this new thing is gonna be good for us.. Just imagine if similar bills are passed by all the governments in the world.. At least Europe should be expected to follow shortly, this will mean our content will not be available on pirate websites and will automatically translate to increased earnings.. am I missing something?




I think you are.  As with all RULES ... the devil is in the details ... especially the ENFORCEMENT details.


Ignore | Logged


Karimala



« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2012, 17:16 »

And American companies can own foreign websites. 


Ignore | Logged


Karimala



« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2012, 17:18 »

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.


^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?


Exactly my point.. I do believe this new thing is gonna be good for us.. Just imagine if similar bills are passed by all the governments in the world.. At least Europe should be expected to follow shortly, this will mean our content will not be available on pirate websites and will automatically translate to increased earnings.. am I missing something?




I think you are.  As with all RULES ... the devil is in the details ... especially the ENFORCEMENT details.


Exactly!


Ignore | Logged


traveler1116


« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2012, 17:22 »

I would assume a website owned by an American company would be under US Jurisdiction and therefore not part of this bill, right?


Ignore | Logged


Karimala



« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2012, 17:28 »

I really don't know, Traveler.  Would IS be in US jurisdiction as a Getty-owned company or Canadian jurisdiction as it states in our ASA?  Just using them as an example.

Wikipedia makes a good point about websites using hosting services in other countries.

Quote
We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.

But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 17:30 by Karimala »

Ignore | Logged


Artemis


« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2012, 17:53 »

I must sound awfully  ignorant, but how can the US take down foreign websites which fall under other jurisdictions...?
I dont quite get it  Undecided Isnt that why Heroturko and consorts are still around, because they fall under Russian jurisdiction and Russia doesnt want to do anything about it?


Ignore | Logged


gostwyck

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2012, 17:54 »

Seems to me that the US government are the only people in the Western world doing anything at all to protect our intellectual property. The bill might need some tidying up but I think it's intentions are clear and, if they get it right, should be of great benefit to us. Piracy is good for criminals and bad for law-abiding citizens. It's just theft __ plain and simple.


Ignore | Logged


Pixart


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2012, 18:03 »

I really don't know, Traveler.  Would IS be in US jurisdiction as a Getty-owned company or Canadian jurisdiction as it states in our ASA?  Just using them as an example.


I receive Gov Can T-5's from Istock so it is still Canadian, or one of it's entities is Canadian.  I am pretty sure it would remain a Cdn business, maybe with a U.S. and International entity.  Getty has no liability that way, they are just the managment company.


Ignore | Logged


Sign up with Shutterstock
Karimala



« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2012, 18:14 »

Seems to me that the US government are the only people in the Western world doing anything at all to protect our intellectual property. The bill might need some tidying up but I think it's intentions are clear and, if they get it right, should be of great benefit to us. Piracy is good for criminals and bad for law-abiding citizens. It's just theft __ plain and simple.

Agreed.  All I want is for Congress to get it right, so it can stand as a great example for the rest of the world.


Ignore | Logged


Karimala



« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2012, 18:16 »

I must sound awfully  ignorant, but how can the US take down foreign websites which fall under other jurisdictions...?
I dont quite get it  Undecided Isnt that why Heroturko and consorts are still around, because they fall under Russian jurisdiction and Russia doesnt want to do anything about it?

The websites would still exist, but would be totally inaccessible from the US.


Ignore | Logged


cidepix



« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2012, 18:18 »

I really don't know, Traveler.  Would IS be in US jurisdiction as a Getty-owned company or Canadian jurisdiction as it states in our ASA?  Just using them as an example.

Wikipedia makes a good point about websites using hosting services in other countries.

Quote
We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.

But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

You do make good points.. There are negative aspects.. But I "really" don't see how it is bad for us, content owners, copyright holders! I understand why it is bad for youtube, wikipedia or wordpress etc.

But for us, original content creators, this sounds like a beautiful thing.. as gostwyck stated, if done properly this will benefit us a lot!

I am not saying it is great for global internet companies who rely on content published by regular internet users.. That is another discussion topic..


Ignore | Logged


cidepix



« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2012, 18:21 »

Seems to me that the US government are the only people in the Western world doing anything at all to protect our intellectual property. The bill might need some tidying up but I think it's intentions are clear and, if they get it right, should be of great benefit to us. Piracy is good for criminals and bad for law-abiding citizens. It's just theft __ plain and simple.

Agreed.  All I want is for Congress to get it right, so it can stand as a great example for the rest of the world.

Now, I agree with this!


Ignore | Logged


elvinstar


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2012, 18:34 »

I'm all for protecting our IP, but as stated above, there is a huge potential for misunderstandings and misuse the way the law is written now. I also wonder what effect it would have on a hosting company if sites hosted there were blacklisted...

That could be a giant problem for web developers like me!

I would like to see something like this in place, but it would have to have much more thought put into it first.


Ignore | Logged


Artemis


« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2012, 19:08 »

.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 19:35 by Artemis »

Ignore | Logged


cidepix



« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2012, 19:10 »


but it would have to have much more thought put into it first.

I agree,

but even if it does pass as it is right now, It is still good for us.. Because we are similar to motion picture industry as we rely on copyright, to get paid..


Ignore | Logged


velocicarpo



« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2012, 19:13 »

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.


^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?


Exactly my point.. I do believe this new thing is gonna be good for us.. Just imagine if similar bills are passed by all the governments in the world.. At least Europe should be expected to follow shortly, this will mean our content will not be available on pirate websites and will automatically translate to increased earnings.. am I missing something?


OMG!!! This is so unbelievable stupid short sigthened! OPEN YOUR EYES DUDE!!!
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 19:17 by velocicarpo »

Ignore | Logged


Microstock InsiderEnvateo Photo Tools
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
NEWS - Great Shot Wendy!
LuckyOliver.com
News Feed 0 1059 Last post February 12, 2008, 21:00
by News Feed
Great Deal on an HP DV7 17"
Video Equipment / Sofware / Technique
Whiz 0 676 Last post December 03, 2008, 16:41
by Whiz
The Great Washing Out
General Stock Discussion
null 19 2205 Last post January 24, 2009, 21:09
by tan510jomast
New search options on BigStock .... GREAT!
Bigstock.com
Lcjtripod 14 1752 Last post July 11, 2009, 16:26
by lurkertwo
10, great photography quotes
General Stock Discussion
Jonathan Ross 11 1382 Last post July 21, 2009, 11:22
by steakhachai

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc